get_page_with_attachments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral detail — attachments are base64-encoded — and clarifies that attachment inclusion is optional. But it does not mention payload size implications, pagination, error behavior, or the non-destructive/read-only nature of the operation, which are meaningful gaps for a download tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the action and resource appear first, followed by the key output detail and a bolded usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a medium-complexity tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned — page content, metadata, and base64-encoded attachments — and when to use it. It could be more complete by naming the lighter-weight sibling alternatives or warning about potentially very large responses, but the schema fills in the parameter details and the core invocation context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All four parameters are already documented in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; the base64 note is about response format, not parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation — downloading a Confluence page — and scopes it to full content, metadata, and optionally all attachments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_confluence_page or list_attachments_on_page, which handle only subsets of that scope. The 'comprehensive download' phrasing makes the tool's role immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this when you need the page content, metadata, and all associated attachments' is an explicit, unambiguous trigger condition. However, the description does not name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.